Smith v. Smith
| Decision Date | 28 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 15.,15. |
| Parties | SMITH v. SMITH. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscola County, in Chancery; William B. Williams, Judge.
Contempt proceedings by Carrie G. Smith, now Carrie G. Reichert, against Ray Adelbert Smith. The trial judge denied relief, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Stanley R. Ostler, of Saginaw, for appellant.
H. H. Smith, of Caro, for appellee.
A decree of divorce was granted to plaintiff February 20, 1901. It contained a provision requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff $200 within one year thereafter. Payment has not been made, and plaintiff now seeks to enforce it by contempt proceedings. Her petition was filed on the 18th day of November, 1922, and heard in February, 1925. The relief sought was denied by the trial judge on the ground that the plaintiff was ‘not entitled by reason of the great lapse of time to the equitable favor of the court.’ The plaintiff has appealed.
Over 20 years elapsed between the time payment was due under the decree and the date of filing this petition. While the proofs disclose that the defendant was absent from this state during a large portion of this period, it appears that he resided within the state for 8 1/2 years. From 1909 to 1913 he was living in Detroit. Within this period and on October 8, 1910, these parties entered into a written agreement, whereby the defendant obligated himself to pay the $200 in four equal semiannual payments, the first to be due in six months. None of these payments were made. From 1914 to 1917 the defendant was a resident of Michigan. More than 2 years elapsed after this proceeding was instituted before it was brought to a hearing by the plaintiff, but during a portion of that time the defendant was in France. While courts should render every reasonable assistance in enforcing their decretal orders affecting property rights, they are not bound to aid litigants who are not reasonably diligent in the enforcement of such rights. This plaintiff consulted several attorneys in the intervening years, and on several occasions when the defendant was residing outside the state of Michigan he was approached in regard to making payments; but during all the time that he resided in Michigan, plaintiff made no application to the court to enforce her decree. In the meantime both parties have remarried. The welfare of dependent children is not involved.
This court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schumacher v. Schumacher
...80 Colo. 158, 249 P. 648; Wolfe v. Wolfe, 303 Ill.App. 188, 24 N.E.2d 871; Chipman v. Chipman 308 Mich. 578, 14 N.W.2d 502; Smith v. Smith, 246 Mich. 80, 224 N.W. 337; Paille v. Paille, 91 N.H. 249, 17 A.2d 445; v. Sax, 130 Misc. 696, 224 N.Y.S. 634; Parker v. Parker, 189 A.D. 603, 179 N.Y.......
-
Chipman v. Chipman, 7.
...long past due, which she failed to use reasonable efforts to collect, is in large part a stale claim. In the case of Smith v. Smith, 246 Mich. 80, 224 N.W. 337, involving proceedings for the nonpayment of alimony, we said: ‘Over 20 years elapsed between the time payment was due under the de......
-
Rybinski v. Rybinski, 21
...decree. Laches have been held to bar an action to recover accrued alimony. Stone v. Stone, 162 Mich. 319, 127 N.W. 258, and Smith v. Smith, 246 Mich. 80, 224 N.W. 337. See also Chipman v. Chipman, supra, and Sonenfeld v. Sonenfeld, 331 Mich. 60, 49 N.W.2d 60. However, mere lapse of time, wi......
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 26
...equitable defense of laches in other types of matrimonial causes, see Zoellner v. Zoellner, 46 Mich. 511, 9 N.W. 831, and Smith v. Smith, 246 Mich. 80, 224 N.W. 337. Plaintiff, however, claims that she never lost her dower interest in the property. The decree does not require her to release......